Friday, January 30, 2009
The Pineapple House plus Cat's Eye Corner plus the artsy part of a micropolis-
that was the place in my dream. It was the same familiar but off- colour world that recurs in my sleeping fantasies. Usually, there's disaster in dreams in this alternate reality. Usually, water. Sometimes family.
I don't remember. There are pieces.
-a new home, ecstatic to find spacious and interesting grounds
-hills, old metal playgrounds, garden...
-I discover that I live in a house in a public space
-exploring and little twat calling me down
-pipes, something about pipes
-a house across the street selling laundry or some shit like that
-lady waves from center upstairs window(A frame)
I figured it out. I can say whatever the hell I want because I'm talking to myself here.
I mean, if you look at the memes from last month you would think I knew that already.
Before it was me not caring, but now I'm confirmed unfiltered. So to test this new form of freedom, I say:
I like switchblades. Sexually. And your mother is the filthy orc-bitch alphawhore of her precious Fido's dreams.
Bothered? Disturbed? Good.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
I didn't eat enough for breakfast this morning- half an apple. My lunch wasn't enough- 3/4 cup whole grain Cheerios. I didn't do it on purpose, I just didn't get home as soon as I thought I would. I get home at 3:30 and I'm ravenous. I eat 19 Mini- Wheats with 1/4 cup skim milk. That doesn't satisfy me and I go upstairs to change clothes. I'd "obtained" some candy. Don't worry guys, nothing illegal, only immoral. I was going to eat it gradually over a few weeks. I first got sucked into picking because I had a chance to. That's all it takes anymore. 20 minutes. I'm feeling shitty and I haven't had my meds in 3 days on purpose because of the side effects. I feel shitty, like I said, because I was so looking foward to something and some bullshit tradition ruined it. That's all I'll say.
So I'm hungry and I don't know what else. I'm already unstable and at risk for a number of behaviors. My seratonin levels are low and cortisol levels high. I don't know what made me start, but I couldn't stop when I started.
Long story short, I ate an entire vending machine- sized bag of Skittles and Kit Kat Bar, then polished off the rest of the peppermint bark. I felt so guilty but the pleasure from it was amazing.
This might not seem like much in comparison, and my brand of fucked up isn't bulimic. But what I am can vary occasionally when driven. Impulse control and anxiety is at the center of everything. Anyway, as I was saying, for a health nut and low calorie eater like me, this is a shitload. I had no control.
So I exercised excessively today to relieve my guilt.
For supper, a few shrimp chewed and spit and eating half a tilapia filet.
I still felt hungry. I wished I hadn't put the other half of that tilapia down the garbage disposal. I think I ate some toffee or something, because I've been craving sugar and Bad Things today.
Later, I started to clean the hamster cage. I found myself picking again. Two hours.
Two fucking hours. I don't even know how I did that.
I said okay, when I finish the cage, I'll wash my hands and get something to eat because I'm hungry and my head is starting to hurt. So I eat a brownie. I wish I had eaten some fruit instead, but my metabolism is fast and I can take it. I don't feel guilty that much, but maybe because I took the last 2 days' pills 3 hours ago.
Soon I find myself in the kitchen craving sweets.
Another long short story, I consume a waffle with honey, leftover mashed potatoes, toffee, pickles, and a gingersnap. The nature of it was frenzied, and out of control. I guess my body wanted to feel full.
I dunno why I didn't go for the Butterfinger cake the entire time. Apparently, the compulsion included a low calorie clause.
Usually I'm more of the obsessive nutrient counting, calorie restricting, portion measuring, over-exercising, leg shaking, researching type. So today was wierd.
And I have no gag reflex, which is probably a good thing. Exercise is better for me.
Fun connection: they're often very intelligent, extremely talented athletes, perfectionists...
Monday, January 19, 2009
I had sushi rice in the first batch, but I don't recommend using it unless you want a meal or something.
-about 2/3 cup Cheerios(I used whole grain but any kind would work, probably)
-1/4 cup granola(I used some from Marshall's, slightly cinnamony and with dried rasberries)
-1 small strawberry, cut into small chunks
-brown sugar to taste
-tablespoon of honey, more or less to taste
Add descending size order for easier mixing. Cheerios, strawberries, granola, brown sugar. You can mix the ingredients pre or post honey. Add honey, mix with spoon. Eat. Spazz.
It's healthy, crunchy and sweet.
Tell me how this works for you/about variations or suggestions.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
My views and ideas have changed since(still not theist or religious), but this is funny shit.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Adrienne ♥
Date: Jun 18, 2008 3:17 PM
i was wondering about the thing on ur profile that says that u r agnostic. i was just wondering wat that is cause i dont understand.
can u please send me a message back and explain it to me?
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Mo: stalker of humanity
Date: Jun 18, 2008 11:29 PM
Here's some info I found online. Please read it, it'll explain some things well.I'll explain more for myself after it.
"What Is an agnostic?
An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.
Are agnostics atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.
Since you deny ..God's Law', what authority do you accept as a guide to conduct?
An Agnostic does not accept any ..authority' in the sense in which religious people do. He holds that a man should think out questions of conduct for himself. Of course, he will seek to profit by the wisdom of others, but he will have to select for himself the people he is to consider wise, and he will not regard even what they say as unquestionable. He will observe that what passes as ..God's law' varies from time to time. The Bible says both that a woman must not marry her deceased husband's brother, and that, in certain circumstances, she must do so. If you have the misfortune to be a childless widow with an unmarried brother-in-law, it is logically impossible for you to avoid disobeying ..God's law'.
How does an agnostic regard the Bible?
An agnostic regards the Bible exactly as enlightened clerics regard it. He does not think that it is divinely inspired; he thinks its early history legendary, and no more exactly true than that in Homer; he thinks its moral teaching sometimes good, but sometimes very bad. For example: Samuel ordered Saul, in a war, to kill not only every man, woman, and child of the enemy, but also all the sheep and cattle. Saul, however, let the sheep and the cattle live, and for this we are told to condemn him. I have never been able to admire Elisha for cursing the children who laughed at him, or to believe (what the Bible asserts) that a benevolent Deity would send two she-bears to kill the children.
How does an agnostic regard Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Holy Trinity?
Since an agnostic does not believe in God, he cannot think that Jesus was God. Most agnostics admire the life and moral teachings of Jesus as told in the Gospels, but not necessarily more than those of certain other men. Some would place him on a level with Buddha, some with Socrates and some with Abraham Lincoln. Nor do they think that what He said is not open to question, since they do not accept any authority as absolute.
Does an agnostic believe in a hereafter, in Heaven or Hell?
The question whether people survive death is one as to which evidence is possible. Psychical research and spiritualism are thought by many to supply such evidence. An agnostic, as such, does not take a view about survival unless he thinks that there is evidence one way or the other.
How do agnostics explain miracles and other revelations of God's omnipotence?
Agnostics do not think that there is any evidence of "miracles" in the sense of happenings contrary to natural law. We know that faith healing occurs and is in no sense miraculous. At Lourdes, certain diseases can be cured and others cannot. Those that can be cured at Lourdes can probably be cured by any doctor in whom the patient has faith. As for the records of other miracles, such as Joshua commanding the sun to stand still, the agnostic dismisses them as legends and points to the fact that all religions are plentifully supplied with such legends. There is just as much miraculous evidence for the Greek gods in Homer as for the Christian God in the Bible.
Is not faith in reason alone a dangerous creed? Is not reason imperfect and inadequate without spiritual and moral law?
No sensible man, however agnostic, has "faith in reason alone." Reason is concerned with matters of fact, some observed, some inferred. The question whether there is a future life and the question whether there is a God concern matters of fact, and the agnostic will hold that they should be investigated in the same way as the question, "Will there be an eclipse of the moon tomorrow?" But matters of fact alone are not sufficient to determine action, since they do not tell us what ends we ought to pursue. In the realm of ends, we need something other than reason. The agnostic will find his ends in his own heart and not in an external command.
Do agnostics think that science and religion are impossible to reconcile?
The answer turns upon what is meant by ..religion'. If it means merely a system of ethics, it can be reconciled with science. If it means a system of dogma, regarded as unquestionably true, it is incompatible with the scientific spirit, which refuses to accept matters of fact without evidence, and also holds that complete certainty is hardly ever impossible."
from http://humanum. arts. cuhk. edu. hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic. htm
"Ultimately, the term "Agnostic" is something like "Christianity." Both refer to a wide diversity of belief systems, but in many cases, an individual asserts that their particular definition is the only fully valid one.
The one principle linking all meanings of "Agnostic" is that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved, on the basis of current evidence. Agnostics note that some theologians and philosophers have tried to to prove, for millennia, that God exists. Others have attempted to prove that God does not exist. Agnostics feel that neither side has convincingly succeeded at their task."
As currently defined, an agnostic usually holds the question of the existence of God open, pending the arrival of more evidence. They are willing to change their belief if some solid evidence or logical proof is found in the future."
Agnostic atheists: those who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists."
from http://www. religioustolerance. org/agnostic. htm
I am humanist as well.
"Secular Humanism is a non-theistically based philosophy which promotes humanity as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the free thought movement of the 19th Century.
Some factors that most Humanists share:
Either they do not believe in the existence of a deity, or they don't really care about the topic.
They believe that excellent codes of behavior and morality can be created through reason.
Humans created the Gods and Goddesses in their own image.
They are very concerned about human rights and equal opportunities for all.
They tend to be at the liberal end of the spectrum on such controversial topics as abortion access; equal rights for gays, lesbians and bisexuals; same-sex marriage, physician assisted suicide, separation of church and state, etc."
Being secular Humanists, they reject the concept of a personal God,"
a rejection of a created universe in favor of the theory of evolution and an uncreated universe that obeys natural laws.
a rejection of divinely inspired ethical and moral codes in favor of codes derived by reason from the human condition."
They feel that religious groups' "promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."
They accept democracy and reject both theocracy and secular dictatorships as political systems that are dangerous to individual freedoms.
They value freedom of inquiry, expression and action. They have a history of combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship.
They are energetic supporters of the principle of separation of church and state.
They tend to have very liberal beliefs about controversial ethical topics, like abortion, corporal punishment of children, death penalty, enforced prayer in schools, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, etc.
They believe that "moral values derive their source from human experience." Since most believe that an afterlife is non-existent, they regard life here on earth to be particularly precious. They are highly motivated to alleviating pain and misery around the world. Many are active in refugee, human rights, anti-death penalty, environmental groups, etc.
Generally speaking, they do not believe in
a personal God, a Goddess or a combination of Goddesses and Gods."
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.
Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships."
from http://www. religioustolerance. org/humanism1. htm
I think that God of the holy bible cannot exist, as science and the bible itself has proven. A belief in a god has been found to be a genetic inclination, and healing through prayer a placebo.
Many cultures have used gods to explain what could not be explained, and science eventually found explanations; the people gradually accepted these.
I do believe that a spiritual force is highly possible, one that exists in much the same way as gravity, time, space, or magnetism.
Science has yet to explain and discover many things, even things we do not know of yet. I choose to accept this fact rather than using a primitive explanation that has been disproven or discredited several times over.
All that I believe was gathered by plugging facts into reason and thinking through. I only researched and read about different belief systems to know what to call myself and gain insight from different viewpoints after I had formed my ideas. I'm not done yet, as new knowledge is always being gained. I don't neccessarily expect you to accept my belief system, because you've been taught that your truth is absolute, and to not let anything sway you. Frankly, Christianity and church are brainwashing, and few people ever allow themselves to experience freethinking.
If you have any questions, I'll be leaving for vacation the 22nd and will be back the following Sunday. Hopefully, my keyboard will be fixed(I'm using the on-screen keyboard, which is very tedious) when we get back and I'll be able to explain better.
first of all no i DO NOT accept ur belief system mostly bacause it is WRONG!!! and yes i KNOW that Christianty is absolutly, 100% right and true!!!!!! and no i am not "brainwashed" into thinking that God is real but i KNOW that He is, and if u dont believe that then i am really going to miss u in heaven. i dont kno wat made u to think all this is true btu it is not!!! im praying that u will realize that God is real and that He loves u even tho u r doubting Him He still loves u!!!
My bestie Jen is awesome:
I for one commend you for being so honest and straightforward about your beliefs. I used to have "agnostic" posted on my profile but took it down when people started giving me a hard time. Maybe I should fix that.
It's really a shame that some people are so intolerant of others' beliefs as to verbally assault someone for expressing their opinion (an opinion which, to top it all off, was asked for.) Also, I loved the part about "I'm not brainwashed, I KNOW it's true." Perhaps a correct statement, but still the worst argument I've ever seen. To the commenter: Sweetheart, what exactly do you think "brainwashed" means?
As a fellow agnostic (I'm what's sometimes called a Spiritual Agnostic. We believe that there is some kind of god, but we don't assume to understand what it truly is.), I give you kudos for providing quick access to this information for anyone who wishes to better understand Agnosticism.
More comments at the original post.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
A few thing
-Mel is overc
Oh oh oh, now Mel is chasi
You see what I did there
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
-Oh, boff me with a bloody stapler!
-Oh, screw me with a barnacled pitchfork!
Saturday, January 10, 2009
2. chanting with "spoon", "knife", and "fork"
2. touching a nail to places on the chair so dad doesn't die, making sure to only touch the blanket as you do so
3. picking scabs
4. rubbing neck just below ears
5. placing things on the desk in neat rows at the edge of the counter
6. worrying about perfection
8. weighing nutritional value of all like foods in the cabinet
9. lining up the seashells in neat rows by category and size
10. making lists
Thursday, January 1, 2009
It started with a message between Sabunim and me.
-So, your home is burning. You have a box. You have restrictions on the contents of the box. You are allowed to save 1 sentimental object, one document, one electronic, one CD, one piece of clothing, one piece of art, and one book. What do you choose?
-Now imagine that in return for losing all(and I mean absolutely all) possessions except for the set of clothes you are currently wearing, you will be free to go anywhere in the world whenever and for however long you please. Would/could you do it?
-Now replace freedom of travel with ideal relationships with whoever you can imagine, even if you do not know the specific person yet.
-Replace that with experiences- doing whatever you want, when you want to, but not including the regaining of any possessions. Assume that for all scenarios.
--Also assume access to, but not ownership of, what is needed for hygiene and sustenance(food, water, shelter when applicable, etc.)
-Another exercise: Imagine that you must stay in one community of your choice with no contact with the world outside it for the rest of your life, but in return you will receive anything you desire, both goods and services. You may not use the goods/services to travel or gain contact with the world outside the community. Would/could you do it? What if you could not choose the community?
(his reply and the same query)
-sentimental item: Um....I dunno, for most things the valuable part is the memory, and as long as I had that, it wouldn't matter. But I'll say my quote book because it once gave me a voice and is full of beautifully said thoughts one might have him/herself. It's something that means a great deal to me but cannot be substituted with pure memory or replaced.
-paper document: one of the poems I have written on a scrap of paper, either Sympathy or The Universe. I think I got the idea from a story I read in Mr. Arnold's class. It was about a homeless man who carried poems on paper scraps in his pocket and shared them with a librarian. Really, it was about the lesson and emotions learned, but you know what I mean.
It was rather poignant, and not in the usual obnoxious way that pleads for the reader to like it or only tells the reader that he/she should find it so. I like the idea. Sometimes I leave a poem to be found. Of course, these poem scraps are not irreplaceable, but that is my choice. That was long.
-clothing(assuming that the exercise excludes what I'm wearing at the time of the fire, which would most likely be appropriate for the temperature): clean underwear. It seems practical. *shrug* I could get underwear later, sure, but I would most likely need(okay, reallly want) a fresh pair before I got to do so.
-electronic: I choose my Zune. Since I wouldn't be able to recall the all the 400 songs that are stored only on it, that makes what it holds irreplaceable in other circumstance. I could gain internet access elsewhere and all my bookmarks are either backed up by Foxmarks or in google bookmarks. Replacing programs, settings, add-ons would be easy when I eventually bought another computer. Pretty much everything is freeware, anyway. :D That is why I do not choose a computer, even though it stores music and does many other things. If this was not the situation, that would be my choice. If this happens after my Zune dies, to hell with it and I'll choose the notebook.
That may mislead you to think I am normal. Rest assured, I'm a dedicated(to the music, at least) music nerd, especially in obscure genres. I'm a tad ashamed to admit my collection is at 1639 songs and growing daily. It's the music blogs...
-CD: Well, I asked that of you assuming that you, like many people, had a CD collection. I haven't bought a CD in years. Okay, well blank ones to make mixtapes. I have a few...HEY that's what I forgot to sort through. Anyway, I choose the data CD that holds my favorite photos. I don't think I cheated.
-art: a drawing my very close friend drew for me last year, definitely irreplaceable and holding more value to me that memory.
-book: This will be the tough one. Books are my weakness. I'm trying to think of one hard to obtain...well, I don't know of any that I couldn't find somewhere else. I would almost choose a very intriguing one that I haven't read yet, one of those in my queue, but it doesn't seem right for that reason. The next best choice is one that I read recently and wrote notes and thoughts in the margins of, but the notes are not for me, really, but for the next person that reads the book, and it will be lent out quite often, I think. That doesn't seem right either. I choose my journal or sorts. It's not a conventionally kept one, but the private place I have when I need to rant, write a poem, doodle, make lists. It illuminates the past few months and there is still a great deal to learn of myself from it.
Here is where I lost the rest of what I had typed. Myspace crashed my Chrome tab. I forgot to copy before sending; it was too late by the time I remembered. I had a good deal written, too. Bugger that. I'll try to put it down correctly again, but I was a wordsmith and crafted each statement to reflect my current thought. Bugger that too.
(cont.) It is a concrete record of my mind, state, thoughts, and experiences that cannot be edited by retrospective wishes.
You found my trigger. Give me a theoretical discussion and I become verbose, long-winded, and descriptive. This is only situational, although it of course has other elements. Philosophical notions make me prone to metaphors that verge on the abstract. Theoretical science makes the nature of my speech like the stereotypical professor's with thick wire- rimmed glasses, white hair, and perhaps a complementing thick mustache.
The rational observation, experience, and interpretation (subject only to objectivity) of reality will always remain my basis and aspiration.
I try to be precise and accurate, communicating in the most honest way that says exactly what I mean.
You may find that what I say is not confusing, if you can nearly abandon notions and stone preconceptions and allow me to attempt to tell you in a way that relates my information directly to the pure mind, the objective process of thought.
I would drop everything and float freely, no doubt. I may someday. I will find out later what happens in life, where it takes me. Although, of course I will react to events in my own will. Causes and events, which become causes, and so on, everything is. That's not profound, only relevant.
Here I went into a ramble about hoboism and career choices. Really, I'm sparing us both. It was a purely selfish expression.
I havea fantasy of training in the Japanese mountains. How many are there? Is there only Fuji? I feel dumb. I was thinking along the lines of ninjutsu with a archetypal wise old sensei. I should be ashamed, probably.
--omitted-- it is fair, I think, for me to give the information in return. My desired romantic relationship is this: I love(a strange word, evading specific description) the person; the person love me. I struggled with how to word the sentiment, and am still not satisfied. It is not exact and perhaps misleads with perceptions. This is only what I settle on. Of course, my emotions will not let me love someone I cannot. This seems obvious, but should not go unsaid. It is almost a perverse cousin of the paradox.
For the record, I meant relationships of any type, any way you relate to/associate with/are connected to a person. Examples: teacher/student, confidante, friends, siblings, parental, romantic, sexual, etc. Of course, adversarial relationships must be included, but I inquired with the theoretical offer of whatever the ideal relationships are to you.
Thanks for unlocking that part of my mind. I was beginning to think it was lost.
This took over two hours, factoring in the time I took to rewrite, but it was worth it, definitely; I crave and seek these ideas in any manifestation.
--omitted-- I end with another question.
-Which is more precious to you: things, experiences, people(cluster animals such as pets with this), or ideas?
-Which could you most easily give up, if any?
-Which would you choose if you could hold only one, the others no longer a part of you, foreign? -And of each of them specifically, which of the group could you most easily give up and which do you value most?
--Are the latter answers the same as to the question of which you would choose if you could keep only one? (which experience, which thing, which relationship, which idea?
You decide whether to speak in groups, types, or specifically. Also, the emotions associated with and resulting from each are naturally considered. Perhaps they are the source of all worth...
but that's another informal discussion-turned-essay. ;)
I'm still waiting on that reply, by the way. ;)
Also, I want to know what any of you aswer to the questions. Don't worry, you don't have to be a dork and ramble like I did.